During assessment, in response to assessee’s assertion that disputed sales were genuine, the AO issued notices to concerned customers. Two customers responded in writing, denying any transactions with assessee. Notices issued to two customers were returned unserved with remarks such as “not known” and “no trace.”.  Assessee did not produce customers or any creditworthy documents to support transactions. Tribunal affirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. On appeal, the Court held that since there were concurrent findings by three authorities on a pure question of fact and no perversity was demonstrated. The order of the Tribunal was affirmed.   (AY. 2004-05 to 2005-06)